Dataset Information

Testing a primary and a secondary endpoint in a group sequential design.

ABSTRACT: We consider a clinical trial with a primary and a secondary endpoint where the secondary endpoint is tested only if the primary endpoint is significant. The trial uses a group sequential procedure with two stages. The familywise error rate (FWER) of falsely concluding significance on either endpoint is to be controlled at a nominal level ?. The type I error rate for the primary endpoint is controlled by choosing any ?-level stopping boundary, e.g., the standard O'Brien-Fleming or the Pocock boundary. Given any particular ?-level boundary for the primary endpoint, we study the problem of determining the boundary for the secondary endpoint to control the FWER. We study this FWER analytically and numerically and find that it is maximized when the correlation coefficient ? between the two endpoints equals 1. For the four combinations consisting of O'Brien-Fleming and Pocock boundaries for the primary and secondary endpoints, the critical constants required to control the FWER are computed for different values of ?. An ad hoc boundary is proposed for the secondary endpoint to address a practical concern that may be at issue in some applications. Numerical studies indicate that the O'Brien-Fleming boundary for the primary endpoint and the Pocock boundary for the secondary endpoint generally gives the best primary as well as secondary power performance. The Pocock boundary may be replaced by the ad hoc boundary for the secondary endpoint with a very little loss of secondary power if the practical concern is at issue. A clinical trial example is given to illustrate the methods.

SUBMITTER: Tamhane AC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2925065 | biostudies-literature | 2010 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Testing a primary and a secondary endpoint in a group sequential design.

Tamhane Ajit C AC Mehta Cyrus R CR Liu Lingyun L

Biometrics 20101201 4

We consider a clinical trial with a primary and a secondary endpoint where the secondary endpoint is tested only if the primary endpoint is significant. The trial uses a group sequential procedure with two stages. The familywise error rate (FWER) of falsely concluding significance on either endpoint is to be controlled at a nominal level α. The type I error rate for the primary endpoint is controlled by choosing any α-level stopping boundary, e.g., the standard O'Brien-Fleming or the Pocock boun ...[more]

PMID: 20337631

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIn clinical trials with fixed study designs, statistical inference is only made when the trial is completed. In contrast, group sequential designs allow an early stopping of the trial at interim, either for efficacy when the treatment effect is significant or for futility when the treatment effect seems too small to justify a continuation of the trial. Efficacy stopping boundaries based on alpha spending functions have been widely discussed in the statistical literature, and there is also solid work on the choice of adequate futility stopping boundaries. Still, futility boundaries are often chosen with little or completely without theoretical justification, in particular in investigator initiated trails. Some authors contributed to fill this gap. In here, we rely on an idea of Schüler et al. (2017) who discuss optimality criteria for futility boundaries for the special case of trials with (multiple) time-to-event endpoints. Their concept can be adopted to define "optimal" futility boundaries (with respect to given performance indicators) for continuous endpoints.MethodsWe extend Schülers' definition for "optimal" futility boundaries to the most common study situation of a single continuous primary endpoint compared between two groups. First, we introduce the analytic algorithm to derive these futility boundaries. Second, the new concept is applied to a real clinical trial example. Finally, the performance of a study design with an "optimal" futility boundary is compared to designs with arbitrarily chosen futility boundaries.ResultsThe presented concept of deriving futility boundaries allows to control the probability of wrongly stopping for futility, that means stopping for futility even if the treatment effect is promizing. At the same time, the loss in power is also controlled by this approach. Moreover, "optimal" futility boundaries improve the probability of correctly stopping for futility under the null hypothesis of no difference between two groups.ConclusionsThe choice of futility boundaries should be thoroughly investigated at the planning stage. The sometimes met, arbitrary choice of futility boundaries can lead to a substantial negative impact on performance. Applying futility boundaries with predefined optimization criteria increases efficiency of group sequential designs. Other optimization criteria than proposed in here might be incorporated.

Project description:IntroductionAdaptive designs allow changes to an ongoing trial based on prespecified early examinations of accrued data. Opportunities are potentially being missed to incorporate health economic considerations into the design of these studies.MethodsWe describe how to estimate the expected value of sample information for group sequential design adaptive trials. We operationalize this approach in a hypothetical case study using data from a pilot trial. We report the expected value of sample information and expected net benefit of sampling results for 5 design options for the future full-scale trial including the fixed-sample-size design and the group sequential design using either the Pocock stopping rule or the O'Brien-Fleming stopping rule with 2 or 5 analyses. We considered 2 scenarios relating to 1) using the cost-effectiveness model with a traditional approach to the health economic analysis and 2) adjusting the cost-effectiveness analysis to incorporate the bias-adjusted maximum likelihood estimates of trial outcomes to account for the bias that can be generated in adaptive trials.ResultsThe case study demonstrated that the methods developed could be successfully applied in practice. The results showed that the O'Brien-Fleming stopping rule with 2 analyses was the most efficient design with the highest expected net benefit of sampling in the case study.ConclusionsCost-effectiveness considerations are unavoidable in budget-constrained, publicly funded health care systems, and adaptive designs can provide an alternative to costly fixed-sample-size designs. We recommend that when planning a clinical trial, expected value of sample information methods be used to compare possible adaptive and nonadaptive trial designs, with appropriate adjustment, to help justify the choice of design characteristics and ensure the cost-effective use of research funding.HighlightsOpportunities are potentially being missed to incorporate health economic considerations into the design of adaptive clinical trials.Existing expected value of sample information analysis methods can be extended to compare possible group sequential and nonadaptive trial designs when planning a clinical trial.We recommend that adjusted analyses be presented to control for the potential impact of the adaptive designs and to maintain the accuracy of the calculations.This approach can help to justify the choice of design characteristics and ensure the cost-effective use of limited research funding.

Dataset Information

Testing a primary and a secondary endpoint in a group sequential design.

Publications

Testing a primary and a secondary endpoint in a group sequential design.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets